For the first time ever, a man has been cured of HIV. The remedy may nearly have killed him, but it opens a door—just a crack—to hope that we may someday kill off the scourge for good.
Strangely enough, the diagnosis that most concerned Timothy Ray Brown in 2007 was acute myeloid leukemia. HIV has been increasingly thought of as a manageable disease, though certainly a terribly burdensome one. What brought the 42-year old Brown under the care of Germany's Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin hospital was the more immediate threat his cancer posed.
The treatment Brown underwent was aggressive: chemotherapy that destroyed the majority of his immune cells. Total body irradiation. Finally, a risky stem-cell transplant that nearly a third of patients don't survive—but that appears to have completely cured Brown of HIV.
Doctors were savvy when they chose a stem cell donor for Brown. The man whose bone marrow they used has a particular genetic mutation, present in an incredibly small percentage of people, that makes him almost invulnerable to HIV. With Brown's own defenses decimated by treatments, the healthy, HIV-resistant donor cells repopulated his immune system. The initial indications that the virus had abated were promising. But only just now, having taken no antiretroviral drugs since the transplant, and following extensive testing shows no signs whatsoever of HIV, have his doctors given the official word:
He's cured.
What does this mean for the future of treatment? It's not as though every HIV patient can or would want to go through the tremendous suffering that was prelude to Brown's recovery, or be able to afford the procedure if they could or did. But for the first time, we know that HIV can be cured, not just managed. It opens new avenues of research—gene therapy, stem cell treatments—that may otherwise have been thought dead ends.
I wouldn't get my hopes up. That bone marrow condition is, as the article said, absurdly rare, so unless we find a way to mass produce that mutation somehow, these kinds of cases will be the exception and not the rule. Still, it's a nice thing to know.
Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this?
1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce.
It also uses stem cells, which means there's no way we're going to be curing HIV here in America anytime soon -.-' Religion-forbid we ever use proper science to cure these types of problems; the terrible thought is well-established that stem cell research is "Playing God".
On December 15 2010 08:11 brain_ wrote: Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this?
1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce.
amirite?
as i am no expert either, that seems correct. Although a very rare situation, definitely a step forward in medical breakthrough.
On December 15 2010 08:11 brain_ wrote: Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this?
1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce.
amirite?
Patient outplayed HIV virus. HIV isn't OP anymore.
I don't think it is that breakthrough because it could only be done with bone marrow of donor with natural genetic resistance to HIV which is very rare.
On December 15 2010 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It also uses stem cells, which means there's no way we're going to be curing HIV here in America anytime soon -.-' Religion-forbid we ever use proper science to cure these types of problems; the terrible thought is well-established that stem cell research is "Playing God".
This is absolutely amazing though. I'm in awe.
or we could just wait till a well known republican like o'rielly or beck got hiv. then their tune would change.
On December 15 2010 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It also uses stem cells, which means there's no way we're going to be curing HIV here in America anytime soon -.-' Religion-forbid we ever use proper science to cure these types of problems; the terrible thought is well-established that stem cell research is "Playing God".
This is absolutely amazing though. I'm in awe.
Different type of stem cell, from what I read. Not embryos, but stem cells that every adult has.
On December 15 2010 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It also uses stem cells, which means there's no way we're going to be curing HIV here in America anytime soon -.-' Religion-forbid we ever use proper science to cure these types of problems; the terrible thought is well-established that stem cell research is "Playing God".
This is absolutely amazing though. I'm in awe.
I thought Obama made stem cell research legal again like a minute after he took office? Perhaps i am remembering that wrong, but I'm sure he did.
I`m starting a business kidnapping special people for their rare bone marrow, which I will proceed to sell to rich decadent HIV-people. Anyone want to help me with capital? I`ll also need an experienced hunter who can discern bone marrow type by smelling people. PM to apply.
But seriously, sounds very promising. Bit skeptical though, miracle breakthroughs do not happen that often. (I know it is not really a breakthrough per se, but it is apparently first time someone has been cured so in that sense it is quite revolutionary.)
If it opens the door to some kind of ridiculous stem cell/total immune system replacement procedure that will cure AIDS, it's extreme, but it's still a great step forward.
And this guy, the donor, who has some kind of resistance to HIV? That's incredible, given his tissue and with gene therapy, the possibilities are jaw-dropping.
On December 15 2010 08:11 Aeres wrote: I wouldn't get my hopes up. That bone marrow condition is, as the article said, absurdly rare, so unless we find a way to mass produce that mutation somehow, these kinds of cases will be the exception and not the rule. Still, it's a nice thing to know.
We're making progress, at least.
Yea it's like the US would need stem cell research to find out how to mass produce this type of cell....
On December 15 2010 08:11 brain_ wrote: Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this?
1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce.
amirite?
Viruses don't metabolize, so they don't just die from not being able to reproduce. They can be physically destroyed, but odds are he still has HIV virions floating around in his body, they just aren't infecting anything. I don't think he can share his blood or any other bodily fluids with anyone else. Just like when you're "cured" of the flu thanks to flu vaccine, you still have the flu, it's just not fucking you up anymore.
On December 15 2010 08:11 brain_ wrote: Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this?
1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce.
amirite?
Didn't he have a form of leukemia which destroyed his immune system as well?
Btw, do any of you guys know what a bone marrow transplant entails? It's one hell of a procedure.....
Whoa. This is really cool. It seems like once the stem cell transplant procedure is made more safe, and the HIV-resistant cells are replicated, this is actually a way to cure people of aids. And it makes a lot of sense.
Any biology people here able to shed light on the damage this will do to your immune system? For example, when you get vaccinated, where does the information for how to fight that disease get stored? In DNA or somehow elsewhere? It wouldn't be lost hopefully.
I imagine that was taken from when the treatment was basically finished. Now that it's been 2 years his physicians feel comfortable saying that he is officially cured.
On December 15 2010 08:11 Aeres wrote: I wouldn't get my hopes up. That bone marrow condition is, as the article said, absurdly rare, so unless we find a way to mass produce that mutation somehow, these kinds of cases will be the exception and not the rule. Still, it's a nice thing to know.
We're making progress, at least.
"Mass produce that mutation somehow"? Isn't breeding stem cells mass producing the mutation?
Can you imagine being that guy a few years ago, being told that you have both cancer and HIV and now you have a (apparently) positive prognosis? Unbelievable and this is definitely a step in the right direction, obviously you can't use this exact method of treatment for everyone but it opens so many avenues of study.
It's an extremely dangerous procedure that's extremely difficult to find a match for. Really, it's just more of a lucky break for someone who's had the misfortune of getting both leukemia and HIV
The key is the total body irradiation/chemo. Basically they destroyed his entire immune system (where HIV lives) and restarted his immune system using someone else' stem cells. They chose someone practically immune to HIV, so now all the WBC's running through his body are immune to HIV. I think the last step isn't 100% necessary, any stem cells might have worked, but getting stem cells from someone with this mutation increases the likelihood of a cure.
On December 15 2010 08:35 Zim23 wrote: The key is the total body irradiation/chemo. Basically they destroyed his entire immune system (where HIV lives) and restarted his immune system using someone else' stem cells. They chose someone practically immune to HIV, so now all the WBC's running through his body are immune to HIV. I think the last step isn't 100% necessary, any stem cells might have worked, but getting stem cells from someone with this mutation increases the likelihood of a cure.
I just finished reading the journal article. From what I understand, the new stem cells are completely immune to HIV-1. If simple chemo killed 100% of the cells, then the new stem cells wouldn't have done anything. As it is, HIV is always latent in cells, which means that they can "sleep" through chemo. However, it was the fact that the new T-cells with the CCR5 mutations can't be entered by HIV that cured him.
Basically, now that we know this mutation exists and we can stop it, we just need to figure out how to replicate it and put it in a vaccine. And that's relatively easy.
Don't know if this is 100% believable but still it's just the first case of a successful recovery under the patient's unusual criteria's . Even so this is why stem-cell research is so important, people who are against it need their head fixed. Almost a million people die every year from HIV/AIDS. Some African countries have 80% of the population HIV infected (Don't remember which) but even if there was a cure discovered unless it's dirt cheap and can be mass produced, the poor in Africa will never benefit from it...so I don't see any hope.
so its basically hitting a massive cold-reset button, and then rebooting your system with a immunity program so that your OS now boots up with default immunity.
or
Its, play as zerg, open 14 hatch and complain on forum about imba terran infantry transition into LOOSING YOUR WHOLE FUCKING BASE in the mid game mind control a scv, build a command center and change your race abandon zerg rebuild at a gold expo make imba tanks SIEGE AND WIN :D
it doesnt seem so much like a cure as a rebirth @_@
I'd be more scared of graft vs host than HIV if i was that guy. He's extremely lucky to find someone that matches with him that has the resistance genes...
gene therapy isn't easy either. If it was we'd be cured of almost all genetic linked diseases.
On December 15 2010 08:50 IkeScurvy wrote: Basically, now that we know this mutation exists and we can stop it, we just need to figure out how to replicate it and put it in a vaccine. And that's relatively easy.
it certainly is not. You cant jsut flush out a virus with some antibiotica.
You need those immune white blood cells because only they can kill the infected cells and keep up the immune system against other diseases. Because noone dies because of HIV you die because your system cant defend against anything else anymore, getting you killed by a simple cold. The only cure would be a change in your own DNA. And I for sure dont know if that'd work.
On December 15 2010 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It also uses stem cells, which means there's no way we're going to be curing HIV here in America anytime soon -.-' Religion-forbid we ever use proper science to cure these types of problems; the terrible thought is well-established that stem cell research is "Playing God".
This is absolutely amazing though. I'm in awe.
i agree, we americans really need to get our noses out of the "holy" book and into a "true" book
On December 15 2010 08:11 brain_ wrote: Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this?
1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce.
amirite?
that's probably it. Even so, that's pretty awesome we can produce that, and not just in our dreams anymore, lolol
On December 15 2010 08:39 Firereaver wrote: Zzzz! Please do NOT get your hopes up. Unrelated allogeneic Stem Cell Transplants(SCT) is itself a very morbid and high mortality procedure costing well over 600,000 USD (Total treatment costs) and longterm immunosuppression. Over a period of 1-2 years , projected treatment for adult leuk's - costs are anywhere between 1-2 million USD especially if there is complication or relapse. AML is a frequent complication of HIV in the first place and HIV-AML is poor prognosis to begin with. A normal Allogeneic SCT for Myeloproliferative disorders already puts you at anywhere between 10-40% mortality risk, varying on the place you get it done at, not to mention anything about the morbidity of the procedure. Now regarding this particular treatment-theory, PLEASE REMEMBER(and this has to be in caps) YOU HAVE TO BE HLA-MATCHED with the donor to even think of a transplant option to begin with and the chances of that happening is in the 1/10-100million chance given the 2 Bone-marrow databases in the world currently i.e USA & Germany. On top of that, the CCR5 mutation is an EXTREMELY RARE one to begin with and the chances of finding a HLA match within this select population is literally IMPOSSIBLE! Now if suppose a Haplo-matched individual with CCR5 mutation did come along, the chance of GVHD related death alone would make me discourage the patient from even consider this as a viable treatment option. Also to keep things real, HIV is no more a 'killing' disease. As long as proper precautions are taken and antiretroviral support is continued, an affected persons 10 year survival is quite high and I have personally seen the first patient to be diagnosed as HIV-positive (in 1985-86) in India who still follows up at our hospital. He is quite fine and aside from having to wear socks and shoes and maintain a high level of personal hygiene he seems perfectly normal, all this - living in a third-world country and now almost 25 years into the disease process. While the case is interesting, please read the Lancet reference about it likely not having any immediate impact on HIV-treatment. Also, steer clear of pseudo-scientific sensationalism and I'm not saying that to sound patronising in any way. Cheers!
This^^ ... Just finishing up my research project for HIV primary prevention and secondary screening. Despite the CCR% mutation, HIV is known for having a remarkably high level of genetic drift meaning that a variant form could exist that would still be able to enter the lymphocytes with the CCR5 mutated receptor. It is likely that the patient still has virions in the bloodstream, but they are below detectable levels (which are currently 1500 viral copies/mL i believe). Of these, it is more than likely that one such virion will be able to circumvent the CCR5 mutation, enter lymphocytes and then either become latent or clonally expand. The result will be another onset of AIDS, albeit very very delayed.
The point is THIS IS NOT A CURE. It is a series of highly risky events that likely reduced viral load levels to below detection. It would never be reproduced in clinical trials or the like.
If HIV was that cut-and-dry the vaccination programs that have existed for nearly 10 years would have developed a working molecular vaccine by now. But the virus' intrinsic mutation rate makes this highly difficult.
Also, based on my graduate research in regenerative med, hematopoietic stem cell therapies have a very low success rate despite the media hype. Oh and these are NOT the same type of stem cells that critics oppose, those are embryonic. This common misconception is really holding back the regenerative medicine field.
Still, I am happy for the dude. I hope this helps clarify things...CIAO
Its nice but I think one of the main things is that these gene mutations only protect against the early stage of the HIV virus. Im not entirely sure on the details through because the presentation I saw on these gene mutations that allow for HIV protection was a while ago.
On December 15 2010 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It also uses stem cells, which means there's no way we're going to be curing HIV here in America anytime soon -.-' Religion-forbid we ever use proper science to cure these types of problems; the terrible thought is well-established that stem cell research is "Playing God".
This is absolutely amazing though. I'm in awe.
Different type of stem cell, from what I read. Not embryos, but stem cells that every adult has.
From my limited understanding and research on the subject adult stem cell transplants have been much more fruitful in research than embryonic stem cells for reasons such as mentioned in the article.
Unfortunately so many "modernists" have their nose so ingrained in their anti-religion fervor that they themselves are becoming the short-sighted and ignorant masses that they themselves accuse the religious of.
Of course most religious groups don't want to support, in their view, growing humans to harvest for cells-- but just because folks hate religion doesn't mean they need to wage a crusade against it while ignoring the topic at hand. Adult stem cells have cured people in the past, and in this case they made a ground breaking cure on HIV. This is amazing stuff, yet so many folks want to turn the hate on religion so quickly that it's baffling. Even in this thread, where the evidence and original article clearly explain what happened we still find folks hating on religion because in their view the religious won't allow this medical marvel to be studied in the US, which is obviously false for anyone who took the 30 seconds it took to read the full page.
Read, educate, then if you still want to -- lay the hate on. Don't lay the hate on first.
On December 15 2010 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It also uses stem cells, which means there's no way we're going to be curing HIV here in America anytime soon -.-' Religion-forbid we ever use proper science to cure these types of problems; the terrible thought is well-established that stem cell research is "Playing God".
This is absolutely amazing though. I'm in awe.
i agree, we americans really need to get our noses out of the "holy" book and into a "true" book
Sigh,.... Please understand that Stem Cell therapy when they talk about it here is NOT the same as Embryonal Stem Cell therapy/research, which is currently illegal! This is Haematopoietic Stem Cell research and to make it clearer, that is regarding Stem Cell rests that are present even in the adults, in this case within the Bone Marrow. Stem Cell Therapy is currently widely practiced in the USA, and is hugely state-funded in terms of research grants etc. Half-knowledge is SO irritating!! Stem Cell Transplants have NOTHING to do with Embryonal Stem cells, as matters lie. Please don't go lampooning state policy when you know only half-truths on the matter. Cord-blood transplants are NOT embryonal stem cells! Please people less blind-hate more knowledge! Dont become the very people you seem to despise in the first place i.e. "close-minded christians". + Show Spoiler +
This isn't really good news. It's just the media hyping something up.
People resistant to HIV have been known for at least about 10 years now.
Scientists haven't been able to convert that knowledge into anything tangible, and this guy being cured isn't something that they're going to put other people through either (obviously as bone marrow transplant is very risky).
Sensationalist story, but no real tangible improvements towards a cure.
On December 15 2010 09:05 Trizz wrote: The cure for HIV was there when it was created on purpose, good thing the cure is finally official to the media now...
how i love conspiricy theories..... this one is a good one
this is awesome! I wonder if the genetic trait the donor had was the one that also kept some people safe from the black plague. I remember reading an essay on it. That trait worked quite the same way, though of course being immune/resistant to one virus doesn't mean squat when faced with a different one
On December 15 2010 08:50 IkeScurvy wrote: Basically, now that we know this mutation exists and we can stop it, we just need to figure out how to replicate it and put it in a vaccine. And that's relatively easy.
Doesn't particularly work like that. Vaccines carry small amounts or pre-killed viruses for the body to learn to fight off.
The rare mutation that was found in the bone marrow of so-and-so would have to be taken from the patient and constantly kept to grow. With the DNA, the only way to make a person immune to HIV would be to incorporate it into the human genome. This presents a few tricky problems:
1. Taking bone marrow from a patient is actually kind of illegal. Henrietta Lacks was a cancer patient who had her cancer cells 'stolen' for use in scientific research. If you ever read in a scientific paper about cells being fused with HeLa cells to make them immortal, this is what they are talking about.
2. It is viturally impossible (with our technology) to alter a person's genome. Because you're genetic data is kept in EVERY cell in your body (minus all of the bacteria living there), every embryonic cell would have to be somehow targeted and transfected (the scientific word for incorporating DNA into a eukaryotic system), with a guranteed success rate. This is a difficult thing to do even with one bit of DNA with yeast (a single-celled eukaryote).
3. Therefore, the only way to effectively mutate a human being is to take the zygote from somebody immediately after fertilization (so this would have to be done in a test tube) and somehow transformed IMMEDIATELY at this single-celled state. IF that can be done, then every cell duplicated from that point on would carry the genetic information of this specific mutation, and successful transfection is unlikely.
On December 15 2010 09:05 Trizz wrote: The cure for HIV was there when it was created on purpose, good thing the cure is finally official to the media now...
Things like this are the reason the United States is so skewn lately...
wait, what? You're from the Netherlands? have you been on vacation?
Get your head out of the clouds, AIDS was not created on purpose and there certainly wasn't a cure created at the same time.
On December 15 2010 08:11 brain_ wrote: Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this?
1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce.
amirite?
Yea, 3 cheers for modern medicine! Btw, HIV being a virus, never really "die" right? They simply deactivate or something..
On December 15 2010 08:24 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: Whoa. This is really cool. It seems like once the stem cell transplant procedure is made more safe, and the HIV-resistant cells are replicated, this is actually a way to cure people of aids. And it makes a lot of sense.
Any biology people here able to shed light on the damage this will do to your immune system? For example, when you get vaccinated, where does the information for how to fight that disease get stored? In DNA or somehow elsewhere? It wouldn't be lost hopefully.
In the case of HIV, there is no vaccine due to the rapid mutation of the virus. The reason why the man was cured was due to a complete replacement of his immune system and it so happened that the new immune system was HIV resistant as the virus could not affect any of the T cells.
On December 15 2010 08:39 Firereaver wrote: Zzzz! Please do NOT get your hopes up. Unrelated allogeneic Stem Cell Transplants(SCT) is itself a very morbid and high mortality procedure costing well over 600,000 USD (Total treatment costs) and longterm immunosuppression. Over a period of 1-2 years , projected treatment for adult leuk's - costs are anywhere between 1-2 million USD especially if there is complication or relapse. AML is a frequent complication of HIV in the first place and HIV-AML is poor prognosis to begin with. A normal Allogeneic SCT for Myeloproliferative disorders already puts you at anywhere between 10-40% mortality risk, varying on the place you get it done at, not to mention anything about the morbidity of the procedure. Now regarding this particular treatment-theory, PLEASE REMEMBER(and this has to be in caps) YOU HAVE TO BE HLA-MATCHED with the donor to even think of a transplant option to begin with and the chances of that happening is in the 1/10-100million chance given the 2 Bone-marrow databases in the world currently i.e USA & Germany. On top of that, the CCR5 mutation is an EXTREMELY RARE one to begin with and the chances of finding a HLA match within this select population is literally IMPOSSIBLE! Now if suppose a Haplo-matched individual with CCR5 mutation did come along, the chance of GVHD related death alone would make me discourage the patient from even consider this as a viable treatment option. Also to keep things real, HIV is no more a 'killing' disease. As long as proper precautions are taken and antiretroviral support is continued, an affected persons 10 year survival is quite high and I have personally seen the first patient to be diagnosed as HIV-positive (in 1985-86) in India who still follows up at our hospital. He is quite fine and aside from having to wear socks and shoes and maintain a high level of personal hygiene he seems perfectly normal, all this - living in a third-world country and now almost 25 years into the disease process. While the case is interesting, please read the Lancet reference about it likely not having any immediate impact on HIV-treatment. Also, steer clear of pseudo-scientific sensationalism and I'm not saying that to sound patronising in any way. Cheers!
This^^ ... Just finishing up my research project for HIV primary prevention and secondary screening. Despite the CCR% mutation, HIV is known for having a remarkably high level of genetic drift meaning that a variant form could exist that would still be able to enter the lymphocytes with the CCR5 mutated receptor. It is likely that the patient still has virions in the bloodstream, but they are below detectable levels (which are currently 1500 viral copies/mL i believe). Of these, it is more than likely that one such virion will be able to circumvent the CCR5 mutation, enter lymphocytes and then either become latent or clonally expand. The result will be another onset of AIDS, albeit very very delayed.
The point is THIS IS NOT A CURE. It is a series of highly risky events that likely reduced viral load levels to below detection. It would never be reproduced in clinical trials or the like.
If HIV was that cut-and-dry the vaccination programs that have existed for nearly 10 years would have developed a working molecular vaccine by now. But the virus' intrinsic mutation rate makes this highly difficult.
Also, based on my graduate research in regenerative med, hematopoietic stem cell therapies have a very low success rate despite the media hype. Oh and these are NOT the same type of stem cells that critics oppose, those are embryonic. This common misconception is really holding back the regenerative medicine field.
Still, I am happy for the dude. I hope this helps clarify things...CIAO
thats great even though it is such a rare marrow they found, maybe with more research they will be able to minic the effects into a cure small steps ofc :D
very happy for people who survive these fatal diseases, but in the end this article is misleading and guilty of all the faults of sensationalist media. closing it on these grounds.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.jagshemesh.com/boratsmall.jpg)
